Art after theory
Part 1 Regarding logics…

We have described the position regarding logics before the epoche in the phenomenological event as being absent and non foundational, and the dangerous consequences of theory, the old syntactic and semantic rules etc., the use of which is so fatal to subjects which could be described as being empty ,i.e. the history of art and language. With the - so called - but not- empty subjective space the free play can and does allow in certain circumstances - i.e. performative acts etc. - the 'whatever it means to you is what it means' approach, typically cited in post-modernity, which occurs for what may be a number of reasons, which however is not a singular approach if we regard the ethics which are in very simple terms present in the very act of intentionality, seeing, destabilization, instability, phenomenological presence, as presence of a wish or desire ,want, need, etc.
We are then in being honest open to judgment, and in turn offering judgment which communicates prior to meaning and theory etc, prior to symbolic evaluation, which is a significant externality, as well as an internality and such judgments being ethically based are free of tautology, are flexible, unstable themselves, which is here a good, not a bad thing. We can now see how fixed rules, old syntactic and semantic rules, etc, simply wont do in regards to the world. The alternative pragmatic free play - anywhere- but especially throughout all of what is called post modernity is essentially hedonistic, the 'whatever it means to you is what it means' of post-modernity, is hedonistic. In placing ethics before this, it forces a limit on the pragmatic and opens a space in the hedonistic pragmatic field in which once again perhaps we can communicate, that is recognize the difference, the instabilities, between others but primarily first in establishing ourselves, as subjective, dynamic entities, and so remember and so avoid the downside of the 'whatever it means to you is what it means', a kind of eventual chaos from which one is unable to escape, to the extent that even the subject becomes lost. There can be no art here even as absence, (want, need, etc which elsewhere is called instability) for what may or may not be possible, as even when non realization is concrete the wish, desire etc, is effectively dealt with by the propositions of pragmatism.
The morality of intention, position, description, state, desire, wish etc, without which it wouldn’t be is yet another parallel thread.
i should note - though personally there is no need- that the status of "can", is sufficient, a possibility is sufficient, as even its provisional state attributes itself, this problem then doesn’t arise, the pragmatic response if it chooses, is to ignore this, to completely remove it, and so effectively remove everything, and this is why Post-modernity is amoral, it seeks stability and attempts to fix itself, even in its free play. This ethics arises from this, lack of permanent presence, intention, position, description, state, desire, instability, wish etc. ,it is there, as an ethics, a morality, but one which is self aware.

Does this then impose itself on us. i don’t think it does - for then it would destroy this, its own instability .This morality is from outside. The best name.. A society - is this? .. It is irrelevant to ...the actuality of each day, each deconstruction, lack of permanent presence, etc.
Any text tries to stabilize this instability and so it is not ethical, as is any text which opens itself to free play etc. Meaning, answers, questions, provide solutions and these are not moral activities. You can not do anything with this given instability. It destabilizes itself yet fails to remove itself - replaces itself with something else which is itself unstable, incapable of Becoming form, as each form materializes it remains, as an instability.




The problem of art is not simple, simplistic notions just wont do. The phenomenological activity, the epoche, is internal and in all cases is yet to open itself to logic, or philosophical problemizing, it is then a complex problem. It is a problem of intention. To intend to problematize is the causality of modernity, within our work now there is no causality, there is non i think generally in phenomenology anyway. The intention and the problem coexist, in a manner which is not causual, non teleological. The coexistence outside of causality avoids the conclusion of an object. Such complex parallism avoids the lack of dimensionalities of logic. But this is getting prescriptive or descriptive of the very unfixed problematic state. We do not need to use words in new ways. We need to avoid prescriptive logics and clever tricks. External ideas. we are still in the wrong mental set, still looking

but what we can do is a decisive step away from even intention and problem, otherwise we are bound to these by some causal logic, some ethics of empiricism, of phenomenologisism.

And here we can as it were we use language differently.




intentionality is the product of a primitive instability. It follows that all texts are provisionally unstable. what is it then which singles this out. Firstly its reluctance to take this on, secondly its own intention as an intention. This looks like tautology, but it isn’t in that it distances itself from itself and differentiates itself from itself.

The moment of recognition of the problematic of distancing in intention is a phenomenological event before the decisive act, which in this case apriori will not become decisive, the decision is this recognition of what becomes, what always is unrecognizable what is not accurately casually describable.

I can see a potential criticism in a lack of difference, and such a problematic might be considered as a new subject, a good thing , a new source of discussion, however its really a kind of metaphysical criticism, and we are operating beneath this, before it. And so the first answer, a metaphysical answer, is that we are not doing metaphysics, though there might Be an analogous opportunity in metaphysics. There are I think however other answers which do not depend on any metaphysical critique.

I suppose a logical one is simply that we will only find identity in an ideality,
and we are seeing the destabilization of our intention as not a consequence of our intentionality towards an ideality but as a deliberate act, of a phenomenological epoche which subjectively is always different.
The refusal to give in to logical difference, or not, is a refusal to engage with the metaphysics of logic or the logic of logic.

There are others, from elsewhere we know that the play of difference de stabilizes a status quo, the signified , the signifier is the play of difference.
That identicalities are, is an aporia,
The identity of indecernables maybe like wise and the contradictions of the eternal return etc. Our difference however lies in the relation of our problematic towards itself, firstly recognizing it as described as an internal destabilizing source and so deliberately before this logical - empirical destabilization takes place, intending a prior destabilization as a phenomenological intention, and this has to Be different. even before logic establishes its difference, or the phenomenological realization does as we intended it in the first place, destabilization is always present, always different. If it were not then we have an ideality, which is firstly impossible, but more importantly not wanted, not present, as its presence would remove the problematic. That is the old mistake.



The space in which this specific language describes its subject is uncertain, as is the ability for any descriptive process to take place. This was termed our problem, and by others seen as a final act of some reductionist step. The examination or re-examination of such texts is another activity in its self. A text may have to have a subject - a pre text - and yet in itself can develop other subjects, this is where we might differentiate ourselves from some deconstructionist program of making something new. Our pre textual intention is art as not a reductive questioning, which borrows much from analytical philosophy, but as a destabilizing process, recognizing itself and it simultaneous subject. the goal here is not an ontological destabilization, and not the destabilizing of something, anything else. Its fairly obvious why this should be so, the move towards abstraction is as good an example as any where Destabilizing the ontology may well be seen as the problematic. Or in conceptualism... But as soon as we realize the problematic the artwork is realized and completed. Yet a repetition or copy of this work is no longer considered art is perhaps the result of the removal of the problematic and not the primacy of a solution. The primacy of solution paradigm was effectively removed by the failure or success of conceptualism which in effect nullified the idea of art. It became an ideality. Anyway without the problematics of art there would be no art. This very thing is after all what we want, what the whole thing is about. The insight is sufficient to see how then it is possible to continue. Historically but not presently Each time we find a problem it is a case or possible site for how we deal with its actuality. Modernism mistakenly attempted an analysis , a kind of enlightenment ethic, one in which understanding mapped the limits of the cosmos, we could do art, the evidence of this is still in the museums. A conceptual critique of this only refined art into the problem of art to be dealt with. Not other problems for Intentional activities do not occupy physical spaces and problems within them are not concepts or theory. We do not have to prove our questioning here, or is it an empty question, remember we had an intention, a motive for doing this. This problem may well be an indication of the scale, an infinite scale, of the difference between the ideality and the intention. I am not concerned with the ontology of the ideality, or any special supposition which we can place in the most pessimistic of places, but with the danger of some self satisfied description. This simply will not do, is disrupted by all kinds of externalities, but the artistic move here is our intention to disrupt it ourselves. Or better at the same time finding this.. Ontology, of any kind, has absolutely nothing to do with art from our point of view, as an artist. The phenomenology of the question -not why we question - is the artistic act. The question has a content not based around this ideality of art and our attitude towards it, it is there already fully developed. Our attitude towards it is not as an ideality, we simply cant compare, it's another’s problem, with no stable epistemological framework, no doubt as serious a problem as ours is. The framework itself appears as a transcendental question. And this is wrong from an art practice point of view, it must be reversed, we are again attempting to say something about art as ideality, yet what is actually happening is something to do with our intentionality, it's the cause of our problem, its obvious that it is, we feel it so. There could be all kinds of reasons for these problems, as exposed by analysis, philosophy etc. and there might in principle be a way of dealing with them, from outside, or we could simply pragmatically ignore them, but here is our move as artist, we want a particular problem to be a phenomenological instance, we intended this to be so. Any acceptance stops our activity. There is no need to underline this act as a kind of objective framing. All previous ideas of transcendence, overcoming, re-stating, refining, making, etc are not questioned, but the intentionality is so framed as to open itself to itself , and not some other problem. That is our aim is not an arbitrary questioning or revision, our aim moves no further than itself as question. This is a very particular kind of question empty of any content except itself, and that is why it cant be answered and that is why is can be validated if it needs to be. Each time the moment of this question is realized we have another site for an art work. It is never though some intention at ideality, it has been realized in post-reductionism terms that it is itself which is the only possibility.



Intentionalities may be regarded as some objective ideality, but I would not like to do so here. There is no value in this, what I want is not a foundation building exercise, this quickly looks like tautology if it keeps to some set of consistent rules. This new space is uncertain, the process disruptive. And neither do we want imaginary objects, if everything is provisional then its that which we need to destabilize. It appears I am doing something I cant do, not just setting up things to be knocked down or are we making progressive systems.

Language is once again at the service of experience, and not supplying any donotic insight or bags of rules. The mistaken confusion was elaborated so that the method became the arbiter, the confusion was and is real, the problematic also, and the interplay between the various significant systems something quite other, the problematic is both pre and post linguistics, things like meaning and use. The awareness of the problematic was never intended first as being useful, it is after all a morphological feature in the past. How meaning, words, work here is radicalized and not random. Syntactically if allowed to run its course language eventually empties itself. But these problematic of meaning exposed the remaining phenomenology of the real, and what well call the intentional subjective problematic of art, once the structures of meaning in language are removed. That is this is not a question but the presence of absence, elsewhere described as instability, absence of ideality, recognition of the possible presence of an ideality yet still intending it. The criteria for impossibility and contradiction being removed not by the failure of language but by the continuation of our wish to hold on to this unresolved, unresolveable.... A captured image of a movement which removes itself in its movement.

We have moved beyond process of destabilization as casual intentionality into actual destabilization as an apriori. So we have removed the worry of what to do, the difficulty of what to do, causality is planning and planning gives rise to causality, and causality gives rise to objects, whether material or not as signifiers of something which cannot be signified, in a field of truth mapped by untruths.

Language as meaning is only one object among others, and meaning is a finality. An excuse. The reuse of it in evidencing these unstable phenomenologisims could be described as representing a new abstraction of representationalism. It is then seen philosophically, where old philosophy looked for meaning and stability, as negative phenomenology, a negative philosophy though not anti-philosophical.
The philosophical here is used as another analogy of what we are doing. We talk about the problems of philosophy , the problems of art, as something to be solved, something to be dealt with, yet the word arises after the fact and logic after the word...
This is not to dismiss logic or language as a pragmatic structure. No matter how well it accounts something remains which is not a wish, romantic, mystical presence, but can be described as a problematic presence towards which our intentionality can not causally be placed. They remain layered together outside of a, the, sentence with absent ideality etc etc, in no conceptual chain. The problematic destabilizing itself, its ontology, its epistemology, etc etc. . After all surely it must do that.